Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership (No 3) [2022] FCA 1455

File numbers: SAD 105 of 2020
SAD 169 of 2020
Judgment of: CHARLESWORTH J
Date of judgment: 15 November 2022
Date of publication of reasons: 1 December 2022
Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – Administrator of distribution scheme appointed by the Court – Administrator granted liberty to apply – Administrator seeking orders premised on an allegation that the respondents are in breach of approved settlement agreement – allegation of breach not established – Administrator asking the Court to substitute the timeframe for payments to Group Members – whether it is just to make orders setting timeframes different to those agreed between the parties – role of Administrator is to administer the Deed in accordance with its terms, not to agitate for more beneficial terms for Group Members
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 33V
Cases cited:

Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership [2022] FCA 1106

Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership (No 2) [2022] FCA 1276

Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: South Australia
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 70
Date of hearing: 15 November 2022
SAD 105 of 2020
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Markham
Solicitor for the Applicant: Adero Law
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr T Duggan KC
Solicitor for the Respondents: Crawford Legal
Counsel for Adero Law: The non-party Adero Law appeared by its representative Mr R Markham
SAD 169 of 2020
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Markham
Solicitor for the Applicant: Adero Law
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr T Duggan KC
Solicitor for the Respondents: Crawford Legal
Counsel for Adero Law: The non-party Adero Law appeared by its representative Mr R Markham

ORDERS

SAD 105 of 2020
BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER PETER THOMAS

Applicant

AND:

ROMEO LOCKLEYS ASSET PARTNERSHIP, BEING THE PARTNERSHIP OPERATED BY LOCKLEYS FOODLAND PTY LTD AND ROMEO LOCKLEYS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ABN 12 244 067 815)

First Respondent

LOCKLEYS FOODLAND PTY LTD (ACN 108 166 276)

Second Respondent

ROMEO LOCKLEYS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 108 157 928)

Third Respondent

SAD 169 of 2020
BETWEEN:

MARTIN SHINA

Applicant

AND:

“ROMEO NSW PARTNERSHIP” BEING THE PARTNERSHIP OPERATED BY ROMEO NSW INVESTMENTS PTY LTD AND THE TRUSTEE FOR ROMEO NSW HOLDING TRUST (ABN 11 807 080 683)

First Respondent

ROMEO NSW INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 156 756 544)
Second Respondent

ROMEO NSW HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 156 757 809)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CHARLESWORTH J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 NOVEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Administrator’s application for orders in terms of the short minutes of order

submitted to the Court on 4 November 2022 is dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from the transcript)

CHARLESWORTH J

  1. On 19 September 2022, the Court made orders pursuant to s 33V(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) approving the settlement of these two representative proceedings. The terms…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership (No 3) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] FCA 1455
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership (No 3), the court was tasked with considering applications made by the Administrator of a distribution scheme, appointed by the Court to oversee the settlement of a class action. The dispute involved an allegation that the respondents, Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership, were in breach of the approved settlement agreement. The Administrator sought various orders based on this allegation, including changes to the timeframes for payments to the Group Members. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had breached the settlement agreement and whether it was just to modify the agreed payment timeframes.

The court carefully examined the terms of the settlement agreement and the evidence presented regarding the respondents' compliance. It found that the allegation of breach was not established. The court also considered the role of the Administrator, who is tasked with administering the Deed in accordance with its terms rather than advocating for more beneficial terms for the Group Members. The court concluded that it was not just to substitute the timeframes for payments agreed upon by the parties. The Administrator's application for orders was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the Administrator’s application for orders as set out in the short minutes of order submitted on 4 November 2022 is dismissed. This decision highlights the limited role of the Administrator in class action settlements and underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of the approved settlement agreement. The entry of orders is governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Administrator’s application for orders in terms of the short minutes of order

submitted to the Court on 4 November 2022 is dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.